The Relationship Between Fusion, Suppression, and Diplopia in Normal and Amblyopic Vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Single vision occurs through a combination of fusion and suppression. When neither mechanism takes place, we experience diplopia. Under normal viewing conditions, the perceptual state depends on the spatial scale and interocular disparity. The purpose of this study was to examine the three perceptual states in human participants with normal and amblyopic vision. METHODS: Participants viewed two dichoptically separated horizontal blurred edges with an opposite tilt (2.35°) and indicated their binocular percept: "one flat edge," "one tilted edge," or "two edges." The edges varied with scale (fine 4 min arc and coarse 32 min arc), disparity, and interocular contrast. We investigated how the binocular interactions vary in amblyopic (visual acuity [VA] > 0.2 logMAR, n = 4) and normal vision (VA ≤ 0 logMAR, n = 4) under interocular variations in stimulus contrast and luminance. RESULTS: In amblyopia, despite the established sensory dominance of the fellow eye, fusion prevails at the coarse scale and small disparities (75%). We also show that increasing the relative contrast to the amblyopic eye enhances the probability of fusion at the fine scale (from 18% to 38%), and leads to a reversal of the sensory dominance at coarse scale. In normal vision we found that interocular luminance imbalances disturbed binocular combination only at the fine scale in a way similar to that seen in amblyopia. CONCLUSIONS: Our results build upon the growing evidence that the amblyopic visual system is binocular and further show that the suppressive mechanisms rendering the amblyopic system functionally monocular are scale dependent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".